Reshoring Manufacturing Jobs to the US—Myth or Reality: Weekend Reading

Save Article

A few years back, some multinationals caught the attention of the media and the market when they announced they were reshoring—or bringing back—manufacturing jobs to the United States. One of the most remarkable cases has been that of General Electric (GE), which decided to reshore some of its appliance manufacturing from China and Mexico to Louisville, Kentucky, in 2012.¹ The products included high-quality refrigerators, water heaters and washing machines. Four years later, in the beginning of 2016, GE decided to sell the same appliance unit that included the American-made products to a Chinese company—Haier—which wanted to boost its presence in the lucrative United States market.²

Anecdotal evidence such as these point to the growing competitiveness of the United States as a manufacturing location. This shift is further evidenced by the increase in foreign direct investment (FDI) in the country, particularly in the manufacturing industry, as foreign companies establish new operations or purchase existing U.S. businesses. Haier’s acquisition of GE’s appliance business illustrates how a foreign company acquired an established U.S. multinational to access the U.S. market, brand, technologies, R&D capabilities, products and supply chains.

The increase in FDI in the U.S. manufacturing sector in recent years is noteworthy. This sector is the largest FDI beneficiary, accounting for over 60% of the total FDI inflows in the United States since 2010 (Figure 1). Between 2011 and 2014, FDI in the form of equity inflows modestly improved in the sector, even though it fell at an aggregate industry level.

Reinforcing Factors

Several factors make the United States an attractive destination for manufacturing. According to Deloitte’s 2016 Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index survey, the nation has constantly improved its manufacturing competitiveness ranking, moving from 4th position in 2010 to 3rd place in 2013 and finally to the 2nd spot this year. Moreover, executives participating in the survey expect the United States to assume the top position, overtaking China, before the end of this decade.³

According to the survey, the United States has demonstrated strengths across multiple drivers of manufacturing excellence. These are:

In addition, increasing offshore labor costs, rising shipping and warehouse costs, and low productivity are fast eroding the cost advantages that emerging countries once offered. Fast automation and sophisticated modes of manufacturing processes are rapidly replacing the need for labor, which implies that the labor cost competitiveness advantage in emerging markets may not be of relevance to multinationals in the long term.

Still a Long Way

However, several critics argue that it is too early to celebrate since much of what these multinationals had offshored over the past few decades continue to remain overseas. Emerging economies are still the most competitive in terms of manufacturing labor cost, primarily due to significantly lower labor rates (Figure 3). Manufacturing labor costs per hour in India and China are one-tenth of those in the United States.

For multinationals manufacturing mass-produced, labor-intensive products such as shoes and apparel, factors such as low labor cost in emerging economies, continued dollar appreciation due to global uncertainties, volatility in oil prices and successful negotiations on the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership outweigh competitive advantages in the United States. In the face of rising costs in China, moving production to other, lower-cost countries, such as India or Vietnam, may be more beneficial than reshoring back to the United States.

The other—and probably more strategic—reasons to continue production in emerging markets are close proximity to their booming middle-income class and the potential offered by a rapidly growing consumer base. For instance, many U.S. manufacturers are now offshoring their manufacturing centers to India because not only do they have a cost advantage, they also get to serve a growing urban market, along with a huge but untapped rural potential market.

Increasing FDI and a few prominent reshoring moves by multinationals provide some indication of a shift in the competitive landscape of U.S. manufacturing. However, more evidence is required before we can conclude that the manufacturing pendulum has swung back toward the United States.

FX

Related Deloitte Insights

Buoyed by post-tax reform optimism and strong expectations for the major global economies, large-company North American CFOs continue to intensify their business focus on offense over defense, according to Deloitte’s latest quarterly 2018 CFO Signals™ survey. In the first quarter of 2018, the ratio of CFOs saying they expect their business focus in the next 12 months to favor revenue growth over cost reduction rose to its highest levels in the survey’s seven-year history. CFOs’ bias toward investing cash over returning it to shareholders remains among the survey’s recent highs.

Tax changes, cash management, the heated M&A climate, and the talent squeeze are among the chief challenges CFOs are facing, says Sanford Cockrell III, national managing partner of the U.S. CFO Program, Deloitte LLP. He offers insights into these and other top challenges that could get in the way of executing an organization's growth strategies and capitalizing on today’s buoyant conditions. By applying finance’s analytic and forecasting capabilities, along with scenario planning and risk sensing, CFOs can mitigate external risks that could cloud the longer-term outlook for their businesses.

Anticipating higher investment post tax reform, North American CFOs voiced very strong internal concerns about driving initiatives and securing the talent they need, according to Deloitte’s first-quarter 2018 CFO Signals™ survey. Talent concerns have topped CFOs’ list of internal risks for many quarters, and their focus on talent acquisition, quality, and retention seems to have intensified. Despite talent constraints, 69% of the 155 CFOs responding to the survey say now is a good time to be taking greater risk—up from 63% in Q4 2017, and a new survey high.

Views & Analysis

Since being named CFO in 2013, Joan Binstock has led a drive to expand the contribution of finance to the firm, including new investments in people and technology. Ms. Binstock, who joined Lord Abbett in 1999 as chief operations officer, discusses the importance of broad finance and operations experience for CFOs in investment management firms, with Matthew White, partner, Deloitte & Touche LLP. She also talks about what has shaped her career journey with Carol Larson, senior audit partner, Deloitte & Touche LLP, and champion for Women in Finance for Deloitte’s CFO Program.

M&A transactions don’t always meet expectations, but an expanding array of digital tools may improve outcomes and provide CFOs with an opportunity to play a greater role in M&A strategy. CFOs are already starting to deploy such tools, based on the findings of Deloitte’s 2018 M&A trends report. Learn how these emerging digital capabilities can be applied to target screening, purchase accounting, post-deal integration and other stages of the M&A lifecycle.

More than three-quarters (80%) of corporate secretaries and governance professionals identify strategy as their primary board focus, with risk oversight coming in second at 42%, and board selection third at 29%, according to the 10th edition of the Board Practices Report from Deloitte’s Center for Board Effectiveness and the Society for Corporate Governance. The report covers many of the most pressing issues facing boards, including board composition and education, audit committee practices, new board member criteria and proxy issues.

Editor's Choice

Tax reform brought with it notable changes to Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m), the provision that limits the tax deductibility of compensation in excess of $1 million paid to “covered employees.” It also stipulates that CFOs are now automatically covered employees, subject to the revised rules. Elizabeth Drigotas, principal, Deloitte Tax LLP, and Michael Kesner, principal, Deloitte Consulting LLP, address some of the ways in which Section 162(m) rules have been modified by tax reform and potential implications for compensation strategies.

The recently passed tax legislation is expected to have significant and immediate financial reporting impacts on organizations. “The enactment of the new tax law in the closing days of 2017 presented a major challenge for publicly traded companies that are required to account for and disclose the effects of a change in tax law in the period of enactment,” notes Steve Kimble, chairman and CEO, Deloitte Tax LLP. Learn about the tax law changes that could have a significant financial statement impact, including in the areas of deferred tax assets and liabilities, recognition of a foreign subsidiary liability and tax credits.

Beyond the possible reduction in their U.S. tax liability, private companies in the U.S. may find another benefit from tax reform: being viewed as more attractive takeover targets by foreign buyers. “The strong domestic economy was already attracting more inbound investment to the U.S., and private companies may benefit the most because of recent deal dynamics, strategic priorities and current valuations,” says Steve Kimble, chairman and CEO, Deloitte Tax LLP. Learn about other provisions of the new law that could provide further incentive for U.S.-inbound deals.

About Deloitte Insights

Deloitte’s Insights for CFOs provides financial executives a customized resource to help them address the strategic, operational and regulatory issues they face in managing their finance organizations and careers, with top-line digests, research, perspectives and technical analyses.